Posts by Nigel Appleton

    I'm with maryyugo here. If the demo does in fact happen, there will be no unequivocal evidence of energy out being greater than energy in.


    Favourite for fudging is measurement of energy input. Second favourite is crappy calorimetry/temperature measurement.

    The gold in electronic components is in very thin coatings and is highly adherent to the base material. I don't think there is any biological process that could separate the two. It's only marginally profitable to recover the gold chemically from e-waste, and the process uses pretty nasty chemicals.

    It would be a mistake to think that we here have seen ALL the evidence about Signor Rossi and IH. We cannot know about evidence not published, and police do not make a habit of publicising evidence that may be used in a prosecution until the time is right.


    Not that I have any great hope that Rossi will ever be in the dock, but you never know...

    If you really think that you are an idiot. If you don't think that you are simply being a troll/


    Lawks!


    Somehow, I find it difficult to care about your opinion of me, but don't let that stop you exercising your right freely to express it.


    Since you seem to be of such choleric disposition, I hope you are taking antihypertensives and statins - possibly a little Valium?


    Note to mods - please don't remove AA's mini-rant.

    This discussion seems to have degenerated somewhat.


    I'd like to know more about Signor Rossi's Quackex.


    Like is it possible to maintain an energetic plasma under the conditions described?


    How much current could pass through such a plasma? How could it be measured?


    Would it be interesting to put a power meter across the input power supply to check what power was being delivered to the system, rather than making dubious calculations from incomplete data? Seems more sensible than messing about with 1-ohm resistors and cheap voltmeters


    (I hope and trust that any potential investor in the Quackex would insist on that as a minimum before even opening discussions)


    And lastly, I am still clinging to the vain hope that someone will explain to me why an industrial user with a requirement for hundreds of KW of heat would prefer a system of hundreds of tiny units as opposed to say a system of 4 x 250 KW ecats

    In my youth as a lab scientist, I fooled myself on a few occasions by not running the right controls for my tests and experiments. In later life, as an employer of scientist at all levels up to PhD, I observed even senior people doing the same thing at times.


    I took the trouble early on to learn about hypothesis testing; particularly to identify the relevant null hypothesis

    When I was still half-believing Rossi, I invested in the Woodford Patient Capital Trust as being a relatively low risk way of sharing in potential profit from LENR.

    Admittedly, I got in when the fund was out of favour, but I'm a happy bunny now, with 19% return in 17 months.


    So the IH/Rossi shenanigans have had no identifiable adverse effect, although the upside could maybe have been even better had the 1MW plant been a real thing

    Something went wrong only when IH had to pay the rest of the money. During the Doral test Darden invited possible investors to visit the plant.

    And also reading the settlement is evident that the IP was transferred to IH and now the rights to use it are back to Rossi.


    That's great! There's no impediment to Signor Rossi commercialising e cats of any species, or re-licensing the IP to someone else. There must be lots of people willing to pay good money for a megawatt plant operating at a COP of 80 or more - I could introduce you to 2 or 3 of them by next Wednesday

    You may be right on the first comment. As for your second bit, you may be technically right, but wrong in the sense that we can know a conservative value of the input power based on the figures, the description, and Rossi's clarification.


    I believe you to be wrong. It seems to me that without knowing the ACTUAL current flowing through the ACTUAL reactor, we cannot know the input power at all. For Rossi to call the reactor impedance/resistance a "confidential datum" is a) flaky in the extreme; and b) shows that the measurement across the famous Brown Resistor is irrelevant.

    I doubt very much that Rossi actually knows the impedance of his reactor. Although such things are parsecs from my expertise or knowledge, it seems to me that determination of the impedance of a plasma is no simple matter, and involves knowing things like the electron density of said plasma


    So there is no way of knowing for sure from his figures what the input power is.

    We will see. You have found genuine RossiReaderSays support for your position. The only case (as I said above) in which I reckon that possible is if it is possible to vary the stroke-rate above the manufacturers stated maximum of 180 strokes/min. SinCe flow will be linear with stroke rate a +50% on stroke rate would be +50% on flow.


    If the stroke rate is controlled by the pump and lImited by that this cannot happen.

    Well, it might - if the pump valves were completely knackered there is the possibility of uninterrupted flow from a sufficient head of liquid, assisted by the pump.

    It does not seem to have occurred to anyone that Prominent pump model numbers incorporate the MAXIMUM rated flow in litres/hour as their last 2 digits.

    Nor that their own blurb tells us that for the 0232 tells us that the maximum stroke rate, which cannot be exceeded, is 180 strokes/minute, and that that would, at maximum stroke length of 1.25mm, deliver 650 mL/minute = about 39 litres/hour


    If anyone is suggesting that 32l/hr is a MINIMUM flow rate, then I can guarantee that they have no experience whatsoever of diaphragm metering pumps

    According to Bruce_H at http://e-catworld.com/2017/07/…ssi-gets-back-all-rights/ it seems like Rossi now claims that there is a recirculator that "pushed water into the inlet side of the Prominent pumps attached to the E-Cat devices. This supposedly helped each one deliver the 75 l/hour of water into the system".


    I guess this will be the explanation used if it turns out in Allans testing that the pump doesn't deliver Edit: 5975l/h (corected after coments from IH Fanboy and Jimmy).

    For obvious reasons, this is just stupid.


    If one already has a pump in the circuit capable of delivering whatever silly total flow claimed by Signor Rossi, there is no need whatever for a metering pump,


    All one needs to get the desired flow is an adjustable valve on its outlet, and a flowmeter. Possibly a top-up reservoir to ensure the circuit is always full of water.

    To be really clever, link the flowmeter to the valve.

    There are quite a few highly qualified and experienced scientists quietly lining up behind Rossi - for now they are not going public. It will be interesting to watch the knives come out again when they do.


    How do you know this, Alan?

    What's your problem ? Why so angry ?

    Are you angry because Rossi has won a battle against a company much bigger then his ?

    That's a weird response to my statement. I'm not angry, just amused.


    For the record my belief, based on available facts, is that Signor Rossi has nothing of value - hence the license is of no value. NO-ONE will be commercialising or using any form of Signor Rossi's flimflam any time before the sun expands and cooks the planet.


    What is amusing is that the supporters of Signor Rossi will make up ever more inventive excuses for non-performance, and still believe everything he says, without question. I look forward to the further development of this art form.


    The human mind is indeed a wondrous thing.

    So if Signor Rossi has his license back, there is nothing to stop him, or a different licensee, commercialising the ecat..


    Not going to happen, though, is it.


    And we'll wait in vain for any cogent reason to be given why a potential Quackex licensee might prefer a barrowload of matchstick-sized 20-watt gadgets to produce any useful amount of power.

    This brouhaha has had one good effect - it has greatly reduced the probability of good time and money being wasted on future con-artists. No-one will in future (I hope!) will enter into a multimillion dollar investment without there being good, solid evidence that what they are investing in actually works as claimed. The bar for "GOOD, SOLID" has been greatly raised in this field.At a minimum, it should involve independent replication of the claimed effect without the "inventor" being hands-on in such efforts.

    I don't think the presentation of QuarkX will be done by a third-party (if this is what you mean for "close observation"). Rossi will present the new reactor to the public and, whenever possible, he will sell it. Users will told us whether it works or not.


    I don't believe anyone will buy anything from Signor Rossi in the future without cast-iron proof that it works as claimed


    Would you? - in fact would you buy ANY heating device from ANYBODY without a guarantee? If so, your money deserves a better home than with you!


    And if the Quackex works, how better to publicise it than to have credible 3rd-party verification?